Interesting idea.Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:04 pmIntelligent Design as having a proper use for the body through its own design.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:36 pmFair enough.
What particular issue was on your mind when you posed the OP?
Also, I can see a need for desire in Intelligent Design. Humans must inherently desire after food, water, clothing, and so on. What was not intended was our free-will based changes on what is needed to be desired. For instance, cars, television, computers, etc. I think the ultimate need for desire is to desire Goodness.
Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Evolution explains everything just as well And doesn't add the extra condition of a Deity. "God did it" is not an explanation of anything, it's just an excuse for not explaining anything. Intelligent Design is just Creationism relabeled, and Creationism is just another way of saying "God did it".Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:04 pm Intelligent Design as having a proper use for the body through its own design.
Also, I can see a need for desire in Intelligent Design. Humans must inherently desire after food, water, clothing, and so on. What was not intended was our free-will based changes on what is needed to be desired. For instance, cars, television, computers, etc. I think the ultimate need for desire is to desire Goodness.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
There are too many design flaws for anyone to claim that there is an Intelligence involved in any design of nature, Evolution does explain everything.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Not quite true. ID isn't always 'creatonism' as per the biblical or godly kind. ID includes the idea of Aliens or Praeternatural beings or what-have-you. Anything that is an Intelligent Designer.thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:51 pmEvolution explains everything just as well And doesn't add the extra condition of a Deity. "God did it" is not an explanation of anything, it's just an excuse for not explaining anything. Intelligent Design is just Creationism relabeled, and Creationism is just another way of saying "God did it".Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:04 pm Intelligent Design as having a proper use for the body through its own design.
Also, I can see a need for desire in Intelligent Design. Humans must inherently desire after food, water, clothing, and so on. What was not intended was our free-will based changes on what is needed to be desired. For instance, cars, television, computers, etc. I think the ultimate need for desire is to desire Goodness.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
That assumes that the present arrangement is reflective of the original design. If it's not, then the flaws are not part of the design at all, but of something that happened to the design, after the designing.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Aliens could. Aliens, like lesser "gods" are contingent beings.
But a Supreme Being, by definition, could not. If He could, then by definition, He would no longer be "the Greatest Conceivable Being," since a God that does not have flawed designs would be greater than one that does.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Adam and Eve eating the apple? Because of a talking snake?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:10 pmThat assumes that the present arrangement is reflective of the original design. If it's not, then the flaws are not part of the design at all, but of something that happened to the design, after the designing.
There was never an Adam and Eve -- a first man and a first woman. The earliest human population could not have been less than a thousand, give or take. This is a finding of evolution. Also, nature has always been red in tooth and claw -- no garden of eden, no idyllic prelapsarian state. This is mythology propounded by Bronze Age people who, I'd wager, did not literally believe it themselves. I suspect they were conscious that they were writing stories, for much the same reason that people write stories today.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Now you are redefining ID to suit yourself, ID already has a definition that is being used by Creationists to get their pseudoscience into the science classroom. The intelligence of ID is God and no amount of denial by you can change that, ID does not include Aliens or any other natural explanation.
The only Preternatural explanation used by ID and Creationists is God.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Oh, look, there we have the silly ontological argument trotted out again.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:12 pmAliens could. Aliens, like lesser "gods" are contingent beings.
But a Supreme Being, by definition, could not. If He could, then by definition, He would no longer be "the Greatest Conceivable Being," since a God that does not have flawed designs would be greater than one that does.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
Interesting reading.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:10 pmThat assumes that the present arrangement is reflective of the original design. If it's not, then the flaws are not part of the design at all, but of something that happened to the design, after the designing.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laryngeal_nerve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0
https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/ ... human-eye/
http://www.asmscience.org/content/journ ... be.2.335.1
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
No; we don't even need that. It's just a definition. If you understand something different by the term "God," then you can always say what it is. But you can see that aliens and gods are, by definition, not "supreme" beings at all. They're contingent ones.
Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion
I am not redefining ID to suit myself. Just read Behe's writings! And creatonism is ID, yes, but ID is not creationism.thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:17 pmNow you are redefining ID to suit yourself, ID already has a definition that is being used by Creationists to get their pseudoscience into the science classroom. The intelligence of ID is God and no amount of denial by you can change that, ID does not include Aliens or any other natural explanation.
The only Preternatural explanation used by ID and Creationists is God.